FLOUNDERS IN
By Joseph
In the tense crisis over the Middle East, two strange reactions in American ruling circles have caught international attention.
One is the cautious posture suddenly adopted by the Johnson administration. This stands in remarkable contrast to its trigger-happy attitude in the Dominican crisis when the policy was to shoot first and ask questions later.
The other is the display of belligerence in sectors of the capitalist class which have been expressing increasingly sharp opposition over Johnson's escalation of the war in Vietnam. These circles, which have insisted on the tactical inadvisability of the escalation in Vietnam and the danger that it could touch off World War III, have abruptly switched. They are insisting -- and in no mild terms -- that Johnson take a "firm stand" against Nasser's assertion of the sovereignty of the United Arab Republic over the Gulf of Aqaba.
The New York Times, which has campaigned persistently over the past two years for a tactical modification of U.S.
"And at present, sparks are flying | in the vicinity of the fuse."
In an editorial in the same issue, this influential newspaper expressed its apprehensions:
"It is true that the war in Vietnam has now reached a critical stage. The expansion of the bombings of North Vietnam has posed the danger of seriously influencing the U.S.-Soviet and U.S.-China relations, while the killing and injuring of ‘innocent' people and the utter destruction of villages and fields through the ‘scorched earth' strategy in South Vietnam have brought about a stage that can no longer be left alone notwithstanding the premise that 'this is war.'
"Moreover, huge American troops reinforcements are reported.
"The vicious circles of aggravation and escalation have been repeatedly carried out in this struggle, making this a war termed a 'fight without strategy.' Hence, any further escalation of the present hostilities must be thwarted by all possible means."
MIDDLE EAST CRISIS
Hansen
policy in Vietnam, and which has argued that Johnson's concentration on a war in Southeast Asia has caused him to slight more important interests elsewhere, especially an unparalleled opportunity to exploit the weaknesses revealed by the current government in the Soviet Union, dropped the sedate tone normally employed in its editorial columns and resorted to language not far from that to be found in the most chauvinistic gutter sheets.
On June 2, the Times scored de Gaulle, "who is apparently willing to throw Israel to the Egyptian sharks." It fulminated over "Nasser's illegal attempt to blockade the Gulf of Aqaba." And it did not hesitate to rattle the war drums against Moscow because of the encouragement from there to Nasser.
"Russia's present rulers are more cautious than Nikita Khrushchev," declared the editorial, "but the game they are now playing in the Middle East could prove almost as risky as the Cuban missile adventure that nearly incinerated the world and ultimately cost Khrushchev his job."
After this dark reference to the possibility of the world being incinerated and the game costing the present rulers of Russia their jobs, the Times dragged in the ancient theme about "the historic Russian expansionist drive toward warm water." This is "a kind of inperialism," we are informed, which "the capitalist nations have long since abandoned." (Are we to conclude that the capitalist nations long ago seized all the warm water they require and now reserve their expansionist drive only to warm land like Southeast Asia?)
Te Times hints in the final sentences of the editorial at the true causes of its emotional outburst:
"Combined with this is an effort [by Moscow] to achieve a position astride West Europe's vital oil sources that could be exploited for blackmail purposes in the future. It suggests that Moscow's sweet talk in Europe may be another effort, as in 1955, to put the Allies off guard while attempting to turn NATO's critical southeastern flank."
C.L.Sulzberger, the Times' expert on foreign affairs, put it with notable succinctness in explaining how it happened that the U.S. which "never even pretended to have a Middle East policy prior to World War II" was "forced" to "become interested in the area."
"American oil concessions along the Persian Gulf began to show signs of incredible wealth. The region's former suzerains, Britain and France, were respectively debilitated and destroyed. Finally, Hitler's diabolical persecution drove Europe's surviving Jews to Zionism and produced dynamic Israel. Petroleum, a power vacuum and political concern over Jewish Palestine thus brought the U.S.A. into the Middle East."
To be observed is the fact that in Sulzberger's list of U.S. interests oil comes first. This is a sufficient tipoff on the reasons for the sudden transformation of the New York Times from a dove into a hawk.
Johnson, we may be sure, is not less interested in the "incredible wealth" of the Middle East than the publishers of the Times. Why then didn't he react to Nasser's moves with his own famous "lightning draw?"
There are several reasons. The most. obvious one is that he is bogged down in Vietnam.
The New York Times is keenly aware of this and has been drawing some lessons about it for the edification of those entrusted with the destiny of U.S. imperialism. These make very interesting reading.
GAMAL ABDEL NASSER
For instance, in a long editorial May 31
we learn:
"It is neither accidental nor il-
logical that many of the same Americans
who are calling for descalation and uncon-
ditional negotiations in Southeast Asia
also call for firmness on the part of the
United States in insisting on freedom of
passage to the Gulf of Aqaba and on honor-
ing American commitments to defend the
sovereignty and independence of Israel."
According to the Times, no genuine
commitments were ever made with respect
to South Vietnam; but in the Middle East
the situation is totally different. As it
views the historic record, every American
president since Truman has committed the
U.S. both legally and morally to a firm
stand in the Middle East. (The Times, of
course, does not ask if the American peo-
ple were consulted about this.)
Besides the legal and moral fac-
tors, American interests are involved.
"The Middle East is the crossroads of the
world, between Asia and Europe. It has
been a strategic goal of Russia since
Peter the Great."
Moreover, power politics must be
weighed:
GAMAL ABDEL NASSER
GAMAL ABDEL NASSER
"In its great-power aspect the Middle Eastern crisis shapes up as a confrontation of the Soviet Union versus the United States. As the British and French were gradually forced out of the area following World War II, the United States took their place. The region is now of paramount strategic importance to this country, whereas until escalation of the Vietnam war, Southeast Asia was only a marginal power factor for the United States."
Last -- but not least -- a lot of dollars are at stake:
"The Persian Gulf area produces 27 per cent of the world's petroleum and has proved global reserves of 60 per cent. American firms have a gross investment in the region of more than $2.5 billion. There is nothing comparable in American interests that can be said of the Southeast Asian peninsula,"
The Times concludes: "If Washington now argues that it cannot afford to take on two crucial commitments at the same time, this would be another good reason to say it is time to descalate the war in Vietnam."
The concomitant conciusion, which this influential voice of the powerful Eastern sector of the American ruling class leaves unsaid, is that Washington should escalate the crisis in the Middle East.
Here we come to another reason for Johnson's hesitation. The very extent of U.S. involvement in exploiting the oil of the Middle East dictates caution. Both Washington and London had a sobering experience on this in 1956.
When Secretary of State Dulles sought to blackmail the Egyptian government by withdrawing aid in building the Aswan dam, Nasser responded by nationalizing the Suez Canal. And when France, Britain and Israel answered this with their version of a Pearl Harbor attack on Cairo, the Soviet Union intervened very vigorously on the side of Egypt.
U.S.